Dr. Mary Ruwart

Home » Dr. Mary Ruwart

Are private schools unfair?

Posted on June 13, 2017 in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Education, Liberator Online by Mary Ruwart Comments are off
Tags:,,,,

Are private schools unfair?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Question

I live in England, where the private schools are derided by some, not because they are bad, but because they are thought of as unfairly benefiting the wealthy. I disagree. I believe that, because the offspring is an extension of the parent, he or she gains no unfair advantage — the school simply allows people to gain advantage from their own work. Do you agree?

schools

Answer

I would agree. However, all schools, whether public or private cost many times more in taxes or tuition than is necessary because of government regulations. Without these restrictions, ad-sponsored television programs like Sesame Street, special educational cable stations, Internet courses, and other advances we cannot yet envision could make high-quality education virtually free — for everyone! For details, see Chapter 10 of my book, “Healing Our World,” available from the Advocates for Self-Government.

Should Women Be Drafted?

Posted on June 23, 2016 in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Military, National Defense, War by Mary Ruwart Comments are off
Tags:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Should Women Be Drafted?

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on Dr. Ruwart’s website. 

My short answer is that no one should be drafted. After all, our Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude, which is exactly what the draft is. Our young men—and possibly women—will be forced—at gunpoint, if necessary—to take up arms and kill other people.

DraftExcept for a few psychopaths, taking up arms with the intention to kill others day after day is difficult, even when our nation is truly threatened. It’s a rare individual who remains unscathed by killing others and being a target, which is why so many return home with post-traumatic stress disorder or serious mental illnesses. Going to war should always be the last resort, since the cost in lives, money, and disabilities is so high. In recent times, however, sending troops overseas seems to be a knee-jerk response to any provocation.

When our young people perceive that a war is not just or not warranted, they become unwilling to risk their lives or kill for it. In Vietnam, a war I remember well, this is exactly what happened. Although young men enlisted early in the war, they soon concluded that Vietnam was not a threat to the United States, and resisted the draft overtly or covertly.

Today, not enough of our young men are enlisting to sustain the conflicts in the Middle East. Our troops look forward to going home after their tours are up, only to be forcibly reenlisted under the stop-loss fine print in their contracts. We claim to have a volunteer army, but in fact those who enlist can be drafted for another deployment. This discourages further enlistment, as new recruits start to understand that they are actually signing an open-ended contract.
Clearly, the government believes it will need a draft in the not-so-distant future to maintain its chosen military action. We are told that without a draft, our young people will not step forward when our country is threatened. This is patently false. After 9/11, volunteers flooded to sign up for the anticipated military action. Now they no longer do, as they perceive their government is embarked on never-ending wars.

If our nation is truly threatened, our young people step forward willingly; if it isn’t truly threatened, why should they risk life and limb? We can’t keep killing people overseas because maybe, someday, they might try to harm us. There are simply too many people who “might” try to hurt us. A better strategy is to make sure our domestic security is strong enough that those who would do us harm will be thwarted in their attempt.

If we engage in overseas wars that are not truly defensive ones, and may even be primarily in the service of special interests, our young people should refuse to go. These young adults become the canaries in the coal mine, warning us that the war we wish to fight might not be so right.
Killing is difficult enough when it is perceived as a necessary evil, but it’s even more difficult without the motivation to protect our homes and loved ones. The draft isn’t only involuntary servitude; its slavery of the worst kind as it asks the draftees to do things they find morally repugnant. How are we to spread freedom abroad by taking it away from our young people at home?

Women have a major role to play in discussions about the draft. They should indeed talk about equal rights—for both men and women. Self-determination, the decision whether or not we are willing to go out and kill others, is a right that belongs to both sexes. Instead of insisting that their own rights should be violated, as the rights of men are today, women should be lobbying for an end of the draft. Our great, great-grandmothers fought to end the slavery of black people; today, we honor their memories by fighting to end the slavery of the draft.

How will ending the income tax help the poor?

Posted on May 8, 2016 in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, Taxes by Mary Ruwart Comments are off
Tags:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

How will ending the income tax help the poor?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Question:

I was unable to persuade a liberal friend that the income tax is evil because it is essentially forced labor through coercion, or that we could largely pay for the elimination of the income tax simply by halting our overseas empire (it seemed best to use a liberal priority in this instance). He maintained that eliminating the income tax would benefit only the wealthy. Could you help me show that eliminating the income tax is in everyone’s best interest?

TaxesAnswer:

Ultimately, the poor are hurt most by income taxes and government spending of any kind.

When government spends, it must tax or run a deficit. Both harm the poor. Deficit spending results in inflation. People on a fixed income, low income, or no income at all are hurt most by inflation. The little money that they have buys even less than before.

When government taxes middle or upper income individuals, money is diverted from consumer spending, spending which otherwise would create jobs that might lift some of the poor out of poverty.

Instead, the tax dollars go to government spending, which delivers half the service at twice the price of the private sector. Gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of wealth creation, goes down as government spending goes up (for details, see Chapter 12 of my book, “Healing Our World,” available as a free download [1992 edition] at www.ruwart.com or [greatly expanded and footnoted 2003 edition] for purchase from The Advocates).

Less wealth creation means that goods and services are more expensive than they otherwise would be. The poor are hurt the most when prices rise or do not fall as they otherwise would.

Thus, when government spends, GDP falls and inflation grows, middle and high income individuals cut back on discretionary spending, like vacations; the poor, however, must cut back on necessities, such as food, safe housing, and preventative medicine.

On the other hand, when government spending slows, inflation slows too and jobs increase. Some of the poor move into the workforce and become more affluent.

Income taxes are bad for everyone, but the poor are hurt the most. The hidden negatives are often overlooked, and those who are trying to help the poor often hurt them out of ignorance.

Does Australia Disprove Arguments Against the Minimum Wage?

Posted on June 5, 2013 in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Liberator Online by Mary Ruwart Comments are off
Tags:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Dr. Mary Ruwart is a leading expert in libertarian communication. In this column she offers short answers to real questions about libertarianism. To submit questions to Dr. Ruwart, see end of column.

Does Australia disprove arguments against the minimum wage?

QUESTION: A recent graphic going around Facebook asserts that Australia’s employment situation disproves the notion that a high minimum wage leads to higher unemployment. The graphic says the Australian minimum wage is the equivalent of $16.43 and their unemployment rate is Does Australia disprove arguments against the minimum wage?5.3%. Does this refute arguments about the minimum wage?

MY SHORT ANSWER: The real question is “Without the minimum wage, would employment be higher than it is now?” Almost all of the research suggests that the answer would be a resounding “yes.”

However, another aspect of raising the minimum wage is the destruction of jobs of our most disadvantaged workers (minorities, undereducated, etc.). As minimum wage rises, flipping hamburgers (for example) becomes more attractive to college students, teens saving for college, etc. Minorities without a high school diploma become less necessary to employers; as a result, the disadvantaged often end up with no job at all because they have few other options. Their primary bargaining chip is their willingness to take a little less pay than their advantaged counterparts.

To the extent that minimum wage laws take this option away, they destroy jobs for those who can least afford to be without one.

In his book The State Against Blacks, economist Walter Williams points out that expansion of the minimum wage laws was the primary cause for black teenage unemployment, which skyrocketed after 1950.

The disadvantaged in Australia have probably been displaced from the job market in favor of the advantaged because of their high minimum wage.

LEARN MORE: Suggestions by Liberator Online editor James W. Harris for further readings on this issue:

* “The Australian Minimum Wage Myth” by John Stossel, July 13, 2012. The award-winning libertarian journalist shows the devastating effect of the minimum wage on young, unskilled workers.

Excerpt: “In June, Australia’s unemployment rate for workers age 15 to 19 was 16.5%. Last December, 63% of all jobs lost were jobs for young, unskilled Australians.

“It’s simple: when the price of something goes up, people buy less. So when the price of labor goes up, employers hire less. …. The unseen consequences of minimum wage laws are the millions of poor, disadvantaged people who don’t have job opportunities. In the United States, it hurts poor people and inner-city minorities. In Australia, it hurts young workers.”

* “April unemployment down, as Australians stop looking for work, and full-time jobs give way to part-time work” is a short report by Roy Morgan Research, which describes itself as “Australia’s best known and longest established market research company.”

Excerpt: “In April 2013 an estimated 1.15 million Australians (9.3% of the workforce) were unemployed. This is down 1.5% from last month and is the lowest level of unemployment in Australia for nearly a year, since May 2012 (8.2%, 997,000).”

* Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage by Jim Cox. This short (40 pages) idea-packed booklet annihilates the arguments for the minimum wage. It explains in clear, concise and compelling language how and why the minimum wage destroys jobs and causes great harm and suffering. It’s a great resource to quickly learn the best arguments against this misguided and misunderstood law. Published by the Advocates for Self-Government.

* * * * * * * * * *
Got questions?  Dr. Ruwart has answers! If you’d like answers to YOUR “tough questions” on libertarian issues, email Dr. Ruwart at:ruwart@theAdvocates.org

Due to volume, Dr. Ruwart can’t personally acknowledge all emails. But we’ll run the best questions and answers in upcoming issues.

Dr. Ruwart’s previous Liberator Online answers are archived in searchable form.

Dr. Ruwart’s brand new book Short Answers to the Tough Questions, Expanded Edition is available from the Advocates, as is her acclaimed classic Healing Our World.